Appeal No. 1998-1512
Application No. 07/993,783
do not consider the examiner’s interpretation of the claim to be unreasonable. The
language of Claim 3 does not distinguish over the TLB pre-loading disclosed by Bryg.
In particular, the claim does not require the “task switching” that appellants allege to
be missing from Bryg. Claim 3 sets forth a “paging unit,” which appellants disclose as
being manipulated within task switching applications. However, the terms of Claim 3 are
broader than the written description of the invention. Dependent Claim 4 contains
language that is more nearly commensurate with the arguments presented. Claim 4 adds,
for example, “means for identifying a next scheduled task,” and “means for detecting a task
switch.” Claim 4 has been indicated by the examiner as containing allowable subject
matter. Claim 3 is not limited to “task switching” applications. Since appellants have not
convinced us that the examiner’s interpretation of Claim 3 is unreasonable, we sustain the
rejection of that claim.
We reach the opposite result with respect to the rejection of Claim 17 in view of the
MC88200 User’s Manual, however. Appellants argue that “Motorola neither teaches nor
suggests loading page table cache entries of a next scheduled task.” (Brief, page 6,
emphasis omitted.) The process of Claim 17 requires, inter alia, “identifying a next
scheduled task,” and “loading said page table cache with entries saved from a prior
execution of said next scheduled task.”
In light of the remarks on page 5 of the Answer, the examiner appears to consider
Claim 17 as not distinguishing over loading information into the page table cache from the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007